SAMPAT SINGH Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimant's appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act'), challenging award dated 23.1.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, (for brevity 'the Tribunal). It has been held that claimant- appellant sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. HRM-5421 which was being driven by one Raja Ramrespondent No. 1. It has also been categorically held that the claimant appellant who was aged 40 years at the time of accident suffered five injures on his person which is proved by MLR Ex.PA. The aforementioned MLR has been proved by PW1 Dr. P.K. Jain. The injuries as given in MLR Ex.PA are as under:

(2.) The eye witness account of the accident has been unfolded by one Ram Avtar PW2, who had disclosed that the claimant- appellant was coming on a bicycle when a motor-cycle being driven by respondent No. 1 dashed in him which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant- appellant is stated to have suffered injuries on his forehead and other parts of the body and thereafter injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. PW3 also corroborated the version of PW2 in respect of factum of accident and that respondent No. 1 was rash and negligent in driving his motor-cycle. The finding of the Tribunal appears in para 16, which shows that respondent No. 1 was also smelling alcohol. The aforementioned para reads as under:

(3.) There are numerous factors which have weighed with the Tribunal for awarding such a partly sum. Those factors have been elaborated in para 18 and the same reads as under: 18. In the present case, the petitioner has not proved that how many days, he received treatment and from which doctor or hospital. The factum that the petitioner received treatment at different places does not prove that he spent Rs. 15,000/-on his treatment. The petitioner has orally given his income as Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1200/- but there is no evidence about the income of the petitioner nor it could be proved that because of accident, how the petitioner has been rendered unfit to do any work. No details about amount spent on medicines and good diet have been placed on case file. Even the oral version about the expenses is highly contrary as the petitioner has stated that he spent Rs. 1500/-, then stated Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment. Thus, there is neither any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence about the factum of treatment expenses viz. on medicines and good diet.